Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kennedys hut

Other version are availible here. (I kinda like the sepia effects)

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good, but not great. Rather bland composition. -- P199 01:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - the washed sky and non-directional light gives a very depressing feeling...but I don't dislike that...but I don't know if I like it either. Why does it look like the bark has exploded off of the surrounding trees?--Deglr6328 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --Fir0002 www 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral for now. the large tree is distracting. psch e mp | talk 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support version 2 Looks better in full size. ~~The blown-out sky doesn't disturb me, and it's unavoidable in this type of lighting - the hut is deep in shade, and the bright, cloudy sky is behind the trees.~~ Apparently, it's not unavoidable - or is this a clever composite of two bracketed shots? --Janke | Talk 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThe sky is completely burned out. Also pic 02 looks better than this (at least no huge patch of burned out sky). --antilived ^{T | C} 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very messy L e idi ot 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't grab the attention. --BillC 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I disagree with a lot of the other opposing reasons though. I think the composition is pretty good. Its impossible to have a bush landscape without it looking 'messy', but that doesn't mean messy is a bad thing in this context! Thats how bushland is! I just question the image's significance to viewers as a potential featured picture. To be honest, I don't really know whether that is a valid reason to oppose according to our guidelines, but I think it probably should be a factor, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it just doesn't have the richness of colour that other featured pictures have; I don't think it's worth including. BigBlueFish 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD 46 96 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]